Facts
- A California public school district required classes to begin the day with a teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance pursuant to state law mandating “patriotic exercises.”
- The classroom pledge included the words “under God,” added by Congress in 1954.
- Michael Newdow, an atheist and the child’s noncustodial father, sued on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of his minor daughter, alleging the school’s practice violated the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses by subjecting his daughter to religious exercise.
- The child’s mother, Sandra Banning, later asserted that a state family court order granted her sole legal custody and legal control over the child, and that she opposed involving the child in the litigation.
Issues
- Whether a noncustodial parent lacking legal custody has prudential standing to sue in federal court as a minor child’s “next friend” to challenge a public school’s pledge-recitation policy.
- Whether a teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including “under God” violates the Establishment Clause.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.
- The Court held that Newdow lacked prudential standing to pursue the action in federal court.
- Because standing was absent, the Court did not decide the Establishment Clause question.
- The Ninth Circuit’s merits ruling invalidating the pledge practice was vacated as part of the disposition.
Legal Principles
- Standing doctrine includes prudential limits, including a general bar on litigants raising the legal rights of others absent an accepted basis to do so.
- Federal courts may decline to resolve federal constitutional questions where doing so would require intervention in domestic-relations disputes traditionally governed by state law.
- When state law and a custody order vest exclusive legal control in one parent, a noncustodial parent may lack authority to litigate on a child’s behalf as “next friend” in a manner that conflicts with the custodial parent’s decisions.
- If a plaintiff lacks standing, a federal court must refrain from reaching the merits of the constitutional challenge.
Conclusion
The Court set aside the Ninth Circuit’s decision because the child’s noncustodial father, lacking legal custody under state law, did not have prudential standing to sue as the child’s representative, and the Court therefore declined to address whether “under God” in the school-led Pledge violates the Establishment Clause.